1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable, as well as an upgrade to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, enlisting as a Chaplain’s Assistant. The applicant reenlisted to be a part of the “troop surge” for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The applicant deployed to Iraq and while serving in Iraq, organized prayer breakfasts; 15 memorial services; volunteered for four patrols per week; and while on patrol, protected the Chaplain. Rumors began to spread about the applicant’s sexuality and the applicant’s Chaplain was involved in spreading the rumors. The applicant was harassed, berated, and threatened by noncommissioned officers who claimed they knew the applicant was gay. The applicant became depressed. After 13 months in Iraq, the applicant returned at Fort Lewis in June 2008, and signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) began to surface. The applicant was promoted to Sergeant because of outstanding service. While at the National Training Center, the brigade received stop-loss orders and the unit’s morale went into a downward spiral. The applicant began to drink heavily to cope with the depression. The rumors persisted regarding the applicant’s sexuality and the harassment continued. The applicant requested help from the command, but was not taken seriously. The applicant was not afforded the counseling needed to cope with the mental state and stressful work environment, culminating in an incident, which led to the separation. The applicant was pressured by the Criminal Investigation Division to confess. The chain of command initiated court-martial charges. After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. The applicant had no prior history of misconduct. The applicant sought help from the Army Substance Abuse Program and Mental Health, meeting the criteria for alcohol abuse. The applicant self-referred to the psychiatric ward and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The applicant’s request for an additional mental health evaluation was denied. After separation, the applicant continued to seek mental health care and was diagnosed with PTSD, receiving therapy through the Veterans Administration for PTSD and depression. The applicant is employed by the Holiday Inn Express Hotel and received an award as “team champion of the month.” The applicant attained an Associate’s Degree and is pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree. The applicant served honorably for all but one day of service, and the misconduct, in view of the past service and mental status, illustrates the behavior was uncharacteristic. This does not excuse the serious nature of the accusations, but the applicant was pressured into admitting guilt when the applicant does not remember committing any acts of misconduct. The applicant’s discharge limits the ability to move forward both in treatment and professionally. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, depressive disorder, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and alcohol abuse. The applicant dreams to serve in the military again and an upgrade and change of narrative reason for separation will allow the applicant to do so. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 October 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 October 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 30 July 2009, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for: Specification 1: On 17 March 2009, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Specification 2: Being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 to 15 April 2009. Charge II: Violating Article 90, UCMJ, The Specification for, on 17 May 2009, willfully disobey a lawful command from Captain (CPT) P. M., the superior commissioned officer to not leave the limits of Fort Lewis, WA, with authorization from CPT P. M. Charge III: Violating Article 120, UCMJ, The Specification for, on 15 March 2009, engage in sexual contact with M. M., to wit: touching M. M.’s genitals with a hand, and such sexual contact was without legal justification or lawful authorization and without the permission of M. M. Charge IV: Violating Article 128, UCMJ, The Specification for, on 16 March 2009, unlawfully kiss M. B. on the neck with the lips. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 24 September 2009 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant requested discharge, admitting guilt to Charge III, wrongful sexual contact. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 October 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 March 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 56M20, Chaplain Assistant / 5 years, 4 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 May 2004 – 15 October 2006 / HD RA, 16 October 2006 – 8 March 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (20 May 2007 – 2 June 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided: Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) medical documents, dated 23 March 2009, which reflect the applicant was admitted to the MAMC psychiatry ward because of being distraught after being informed by the significant other the person cheated on the applicant and the applicant broke up with the significant other. The applicant was assessed with having adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Madigan Army Medical Center Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department (SARD) letter, dated 29 April 2010, which reflects the applicant was assessed at the SARD clinic on 26 March 2009 and determined to have met the criteria of alcohol abuse. The applicant was enrolled in out-patient treatment. River Region Community Mental Health Services letter, dated 30 July 2010, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; depressive disorder not otherwise specified; and anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified. Department of Veterans Affairs Central Alabama Health Care System medical documents, dated between 27 May 2014 and 11 August 2016, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic; major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; and traumatic brain injury, with no loss of consciousness. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed enclosures 1 through 36. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided evidence that the applicant is employed at the Holiday Inn Express hotel; the applicant received the Team Champion of the Month award; earned an Associate’s Degree; and is pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (5) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (6) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. T The evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The general (under honorable conditions) discharge received by the applicant was appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2- 3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and other mental health conditions affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and alcohol abuse, while in service. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant provided medical documents which reflect, after discharge, the applicant was diagnosed by the VA and the River Region Community Mental Health Services with PTSD, chronic; depressive disorder not otherwise specified; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; and traumatic brain injury with no loss of consciousness. The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the unit based on sexual orientation. The applicant presented third party statements in support of the applicant’s contention. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment or discrimination. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the command with the mental health issues, which led to the misconduct and the applicant to self-medicate with alcohol. The applicant provided medical documents which reflect the applicant was seen and treated by mental health professionals while in the service and diagnosed with a mental health condition. Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 7-3 entitled voluntary (self) identification and referral, states voluntary (self) ID is the most desirable method of identifying substance use disorder. The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations, or health becomes impaired because of these problems has the personal obligation to seek help. Soldiers seeking self-referral for problematic substance use may access services through BH services for a SUD evaluation. The Limited Use Policy exists to encourage Soldiers to proactively seek help. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considers the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends being employed at the Holiday Inn Express hotel, receiving the Team Champion of the Month award; earning an Associate’s Degree from the University of Phoenix; and pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and/or good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Chronic PTSD, Major Depression, Anxiety and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Chronic PTSD, and Major Depression existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the applicant’s offense of AWOL, FTR, and disobeying a lawful order given the nexus between these conditions and avoidance. However, the Board Medical Advisor opined that none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s wrongful sexual contact and assault offenses referenced in paragraph 3c above as there is no natural sequelae between these conditions and the applicant’s offenses. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL, FTR, and disobeying a lawful command offenses, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, Anxiety and TBI do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – committing wrongful sexual contact and assault. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was discharge for AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 for which the applicant received the appropriate narrative reason of “in lieu of Court-Martial.” The Board determined that the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s medical condition did not warrant an upgrade to the applicant’s narrative reason. . (2) The applicant contends undiagnosed PTSD, TBI, and other mental health conditions affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL, FTR, and disobeying a lawful command offenses, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, or Major Depression do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – committing wrongful sexual contact and assault. (3) The Board considered this contention, including the applicant submitted third party statement. However, the Board determined the weight of the evidence does not that the Command harassed or discriminated against the applicant.. (4) The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the command with the mental health issues, which led to the misconduct and the applicant to self-medicate with alcohol. The Board considered this contention and determined that the weight of the evidence does not support a discharge upgrade as the applicant official medical records and applicant provided evidence includes medical documents reflect the applicant attended ASAP and received behavioral health treatment while in service. The Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of arbitrary or capricious treatment by command, and that the discharge was proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By engaging in wrongful sexual contact and assault, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (8) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code of RE-4. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. (9) The contends being employed at the Holiday Inn Express hotel, receiving the Team Champion of the Month award; earning an Associate’s Degree from the University of Phoenix; and pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the applicant’s offenses of wrongful sexual contact and assault due to the severity of these offenses. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, while the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL, FTR, and disobeying a lawful command offenses, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, or Major Depression, TBI and Anxiety Disorder do not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – committing wrongful sexual contact. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting an upgrade to a General Discharge or meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002514 1